Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and Lancashire County Council (LCC)

This entry is related to the links seen here listed in order of submissions as blogs:
http://www.criticalreader2006.blogspot.com/
http://www.criticalreader2007.blogspot.com/
http://www.criticalreadercw.blogspot.com/

Today is May 1st 2007.
The last entry referred to the compounding of corruption within the Employment Tribunal Service (ETS) which was to cover for the corruption evidenced from Lancashire County Council and various related agencies such as UNISON, ACAS, LAW SOCIETY, BAR COUNCIL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN, LANCASHIRE POLICE, MANCHESTER EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (M.E.T.) AND LANCASTER COUNTY COURT.

The entry of Tuesday 24th April 07 outlined the offender, M.E.T. in perverting the course of justice for me.
The deliberation in all that was best exemplified in the non-registering of my claim which was the collective first step taken to protect LCC from being seen to be what they were (and are), corporate facists and institutional bullies at best.

After more abuse of me as a litigant in person from the ETS per se I was finally granted an ex-parte hearing in the EAT for 5 Sept 2003.

I had 2 witnesses with me that day: Q C JEREMY MCMULLEN was presiding.
My skelton argument presented errors in law from the lower court, M.E.T. e.g. ignoring perjury, and it also gave examples of that perjury from Tony Bradshaw, Gillian Armstrong and Patricia Allen.
Another point was the unsigned witness statements, 2 examples, Louise Young and Jane Gray as examples in the conspiracy. Gray changed her testimony on the stand to conflict with what her witness statement recorded. She declared her statement did not offer true facts.
I declared that there were also violations of human rights in that the case was not registered and illegally heard in a closed court, both facts were unknown to me at the relevant time.

In my bundle I submitted 3 solicitors' letters stating as fact that my case had never been registered contrary to their own Rules of Procedure. There was some evidence that M.E.T. had continued the case without me after I had been told I had won, there were witness statements confirming that secret meetings between the bench and LCC (respondents) had taken place, the violations of Article 6 at very least were apparent.

I tried to compact my case for the appeal and included the fact that the claim had been changed from Constructive Dismissal to Unfair Dismissal offering cogent evidence. I concentrated on errors in law, any one error should have guaranteed me a decision in my favour.

McMullen said that he had read my skeleton argument and denied me the chance to read it in public but he said that the case would go to a full hearing.
McMullen refused to allow me to tape the hearing then taking place.
He was curious about the original whistleblowing matter and asked if my MP was supporting me.
I told him it was Hilton Dawson and that Dawson had resigned when he learned that I could show how involved he was with LCC to the detriment of his consituents. But worse, Dawson was the parliamentary rep. for UNISON, the uion acting illegally in expelling me and telling 46 staff members being dismissed, "Don't cause a fuss or you'll not get your severence pay".
(Dawson later withdrew his resignation saying he would not stand after the next election instead. See link above, criticalreader2006)

I told McMullen that there had been a cost hearing on 1st Sept in Manchester Tribunals and told him I knew it was illegal in being held prior to the appeal if for no other reason. McMullen agreed with me saying, "They can't do that". He heard of the data protection issues and changed his mind about a full hearing. He said, "I can't give you a judgement".
And didn't.

I asked when could I expect one and was told mid Sept. One did not arrive. I asked again and was told end Sept. One did not arrive.
Nothing arrived.
I wrote to emphasise the various corrupt practices apparent, copied some letters to the Bar Council and Lord Falconer. I tried the District Auditor, Mike Thomas, re the misuse of public monies (see separate link yet to be added) and heard nothing.
Eventually Falconer's office wrote. They had ignored my letters telling of the travesty but in October said that there was to be a cost hearing 'next month' in Manchester.
Falconer was rewriting history. He knew that there had already been that cost hearing. 'Next month' as written in Oct means November in anybody's language.
I told him I would not fund corruption.

I also reminded him that LCC had written to me dated Sept 12th 03 telling me that the cost hearing had been heard and that I was to pay (almost) £40k costs. How would they talk their way out of that one?
In Mid Oct I wrote to the EAT saying that I did not need an appeal becasue I had won my case in March 03.
I heard nothing.
On Nov 11th I received two documents from the EAT.
One was dated 22 Oct 03 and also 24 Oct 03.
One was dated 28 oct 03.
They had been posted on Nov 7th 03 and I still have the envelope showing that frankmark.
On 22 Oct 03 or 24th, take your pick, McMullen says that he will not allow my appeal but gives me 14 days to apply further to the Royal Courts of Justice (see link yet to be added.)
It had then deliberately been sent late to put me out of time.

In his amateurish banalities McMullen records that "..... she (me) is a social worker" as fact. My papers were clear, I had not been a social worker then for 2 years. He also records that I was Secretary of my union, NATFHE (see link yet to be added) which was bizarre. Why would a social worker be secretary of a teaching union?
McMullen adds to the conspiracy and records that my claim was registered, liar that he was.
He records that it was heard over 12 days in March and April 03 thus confirming that there had been two extra days without me. How had I read my closing submissions on 28 March 03 and had a copy of the ones that LCC had read out on that same day if it hadn't been the last day? No one could tell me which witnesses were called on those two extra days and where the paperwork was showing that it was a Part Heard case after 28 March 03.
He also records that... "I understand that there is a cost hearing yet to be heard". Again in anybody's language, "yet to be heard" in Oct means Nov.
There were many, many other basic mistakes, the level of their collective intelligence beggars belief. A lobotomised chicked would be cleverer.

I regulalry asked MET, EAT and the DCA when was the cost hearing Manchester in November. Where were the documents? Where was my invite? Why would they have one when they had already had one?
My questions remain unanswered although I still continue to ask.
But that is a classic example of Falconer conspiring to pervert the course of justice in instructing McMullen to try and rewrite the history of MET. The letter from LCC saying it had gone ahead is rather an inconvenient fact. I have reported Falconer et al to the London Metropolitan police asking that I be allowed to make a statement re Falconer for criminal offences and his vicarious liablity for his corrupt and criminal judges.

(London Met. link yet to be added.)

I rang the RCJ who told me that the documents should have had the same date. The one dated the 28th said that it had been sent to parties on that day when it had not been sent to me until Nov when it arrived on the 11th. It had though been faxed to LCC on the 28th becasue I later got a copy with the fax marks and numbers with dates on the document. And if anyone says I imagine conspiracy then that person needs a dictionary.

I was advised to apply for an out of time hearing in the RCJ and did so.
I also knew something else that they hadn't accounted for but had learned by then not to disclose all my information.
I also learned that the appeal in the EAT had never been registered and thus had not been heard either. And all at my expense. I had two witnesses to travel all that way again, stay overnight to ensure proper time keeping, and was told I couldn't claim expenses.
If McMullen was paid he committed a fraud on the public in knowing that the hearing was illegal.
If McMullen did not claim because he knew it was another joke then the fraud was on me because I thought I was having a proper hearing.
Either way, fraud had been committed again.

I complained to Michael Burton President of the EAT, and he behaved as Brian Doyle of M.E.T. had, in corrupt manner. Another unfit for his post, another parasite on society.
Even the most tolerant of readers will accept that a public servant on the salaries they get (heaven only knows what for) who doesn't do the job they are paid to do is a parasite on society, by definition.

The full version is to be published in book form.
The next related entry of date order is Manchester Magistrates Court.
Carol Woods Lancaster